DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is in response to application 19/277,994 filed 7/23/2025.
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based e-Terminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An e-Terminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about e-Terminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1 and 11 of the instant application are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 11 and 51 of U.S. Patent No. 12,389,076. The instant claims are not patentably distinct from the claims of U.S. Patent No. 12,389,076 because both sets of claims are directed to the same inventive concept of identifying supplemental content associated with an object depicted in a media asset by using information related to the object and a user profile, and presenting the supplemental content during presentation of the media asset. Any differences between the instant claims and the patented claims constitute only obvious variations in terminology, claim drafting, or implementation details that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art and do not render the instant claims patentably distinct, as demonstrated by the limitation-by-limitation comparison of the independent and corresponding dependent claims set forth in the table below.
Accordingly, claims 1 and 11 of the instant application are not patentably distinct from claims 11 and 51 of U.S. Patent No. 12,389,076 for the reasons set forth in the limitation-by-limitation comparison below.
Instant Application 19/277,994
Parent Pat 12,389,076
Not Patentably Distinct
Independent Claims 1 and 11:
identifying a plurality of scenes of a media asset, wherein each scene depicts one or more objects;
determining a plurality of scene attributes comprising at least one scene attribute indicating which objects are depicted in the respective scene; and
storing the plurality of scene attributes as metadata associated with the respective scene;
generating, for display at a device associated with a user profile, the media asset;
receiving a query regarding an object depicted in the media asset;
identifying at least one scene of the plurality of scenes having associated metadata that indicates that the queried object is depicted in the at least one scene;
comparing the plurality of scene attributes of the at least one scene to user interest metadata accessed from the user profile;
based on the comparing indicating that one or more scene attributes of the at least one scene corresponds to at least a portion of the user interest metadata, selecting the at least one scene to be used as supplemental content; and
generating for display the supplemental content while the media asset is being generated for display.
Dependent Claims:
Claim 8
Claim 9
Claim 10
Claim 18
Claim 19
Claim 20
Independent Claims 11 and 51:
generating for display a media asset;
receiving a query regarding an object depicted in the media asset at a first time point within a presentation duration of the media asset;
identifying supplemental content related to the object by: determining a presentation point within the presentation duration of the media asset related to the object;
determining, based on a user profile of a user associated with the query, whether the presentation point was previously consumed by the user of the user profile; and
based on determining that the presentation point was not previously consumed by the user of the user profile, refraining from using the presentation point as the supplemental content; and
generating for display the other content as the supplemental content while the media asset is being generated for display.
Dependent Claims:
Claim 6
Claim 8
Claim 54
Claim 16
Claim 18
Claim 56
Analysis:
Identifying the media asset as comprising a plurality of object-containing scenes merely defines how the media asset is organized to facilitate subsequent identification of object-related content. This organization detail does not render the claimed invention patentably distinct.
Determining attributes indicating the objects depicted in each scene merely provides information by which content related to a queried object may subsequently be identified. This constitutes an obvious data-processing technique for facilitating identification of content related to the queried object.
Storing the determined scene attributes as metadata merely preserves the object-identification information for subsequent retrieval and use. Associated such metadata with the respective scenes is an conventional implementation detail for facilitating the parent claims’ identification of content related to the queried object.
Both claims generate the media asset for display. Specifying that the display occurs at a device associated with a user profile merely identifies the user environment in which the media asset is presented and does not materially alter the media-display function.
Both claims receive a query regarding an object depicted in the displayed media asset. The parent claim further specifies when the query is received, but both limitations perform the same query-receiving function and seek information concerning an object depicted in the media asset.
Both claims identify a portion of the media asset related to the queried object for possible use as supplemental content. Identifying a scene through associated metadata rather than identifying a presentation point constitutes an obvious alternative for locating object-related content within the media asset.
Both claims evaluate the identified object-related content using information obtained from the user profile. Comparing scene attributes with user-interest metadata rather than determining prior consumption merely employs a different type of user-profile information to determine whether the identified content is appropriate for the user.
Both claims select the content to be used as supplemental content based on the result of the user-profile evaluation. Selecting a scene having attributes corresponding to user interests, rather than excluding a presentation point based on prior consumption and identifying other content, constitutes a different implementation of user-profile-based supplemental-content selection and does not render the claims patentably distinct.
Both claims generate the selected supplemental content for display while the media asset is being generated for display. The limitations perform substantially the same concurrent supplemental-content display function and produce the same overall result.
Analysis:
Both claims limit the media asset to an episodic media asset and specify that the additional content is selected from a different episode of the same series.
Both claims require the additional content to originate from a related media asset corresponding to a prequel or sequel of the current media asset. The limitations perform the same content-selection function and achieve the same result of selecting supplemental content from related media assets.
Both claims require simultaneous presentation of the media asset and supplemental content on different devices. The instant claim merely specifies the devices are associated with the user profile, which identifies the operating environment without materially changing the underlying display functionality or result.
Both claims recite the system counterpart of the episodic media asset limitation, requiring supplemental content from another episode of the same series. The limitations perform substantially the same function and achieve the same result, differing only in statutory class (system versus method).
Both claims recite the system counterpart requiring supplemental content from a related media asset corresponding to a prequel or sequel. The limitations perform the same related-media selection function and produce the same overall result.
Both claims require simultaneous display of the supplemental content and media asset on different devices in the system embodiment. The limitations perform the same concurrent display function and do not provide a patentably distinct technological difference.
Objections to the claims
Claims 7 and 17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The combination of JEONG and Bellare do not teach the feature of “wherein comparing the plurality of scene attributes of the at least one scene to the user interest metadata accessed from the user profile comprises: using a Bayesian belief network (BBN) determining a predicted user likability of the at least one scene based at least in part on identifying connections between the plurality of scene attributes and the user interest metadata, wherein: the at least one scene is selected to be used as supplemental content, based at least in part on determining a high predicted user likability for the at least one scene.” Thus, the prior art of record fails to teach or suggest comparing scene attributes with user interest metadata using a Bayesian Belief Network (BBN) to determine a predicted user likability for a scene, and selecting the scene as supplemental content based on the predicted user likability. A further search was conducted, but no prior art was found that teaches or suggests the claimed combination of comparing scene attributes with user interest metadata using a Bayesian Belief Network (BBN) to predict user likability and selecting supplemental content based on that prediction.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-5, 10-15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JEONG et al., Pub No US 2021/0321166 (hereafter JEONG) in view of Bellare et al., Pub No US 2020/0257748 (hereafter Bellare).
Regarding Claim 1, JEONG discloses a computer-implemented method, comprising:
identifying a plurality of scenes of a media asset, wherein each scene depicts one or more objects [paras.0254-0256: Discloses obtaining a plurality of images from media content and detects and identifies an object in the plurality of images, including a humane face, goods, or a place using data recognition model. JEONG teaches this limitation because it detects and identifies objects in a plurality of images corresponding to scenes of the media asset.];
for each respective scene of the plurality of scenes:
determining a plurality of scene attributes comprising at least one scene attribute indicating which objects are depicted in the respective scene [paras.0254-0256: Discloses detecting and identifying an object in the plurality of images, including a human face, goods, or a place using a data recognition model. JEONG teaches this limitation because the identified object corresponds to a scene attribute indicating which object is depicted in the respective scene.];
generating, for display at a device associated with a user profile, the media asset [paras.0050-0053: Discloses displaying media content on an electronic apparatus and receiving a user’s input through an information search user interface. JEONG teaches this limitation because the media asset is displayed on the user’s electronic apparatus.];
receiving a query regarding an object depicted in the media asset [paras.0050-0053: Discloses receiving a user’s input requesting an information search for an object contained in media content. JEONG teaches this limitation because the user’s input is a query regarding an object depicted in the media asset.]; and
generating for display the supplemental content while the media asset is being generated for display [paras.0097-0098: Discloses providing relevant information in connection with the media content while fully watching the media content. JEONG teaches this limitation because relevant information is displayed while the media asset is being displayed.].
JEONG does not explicitly disclose storing the plurality of scene attributes as metadata associated with the respective scene; identifying at least one scene of the plurality of scenes having associated metadata that indicates that the queried object is depicted in the at least one scene; comparing the plurality of scene attributes of the at least one scene to user interest metadata accessed from the user profile; and based on the comparing indicating that one or more scene attributes of the at least one scene corresponds to at least a portion of the user interest metadata, selecting the at least one scene to be used as supplemental content;
However, in analogous art, Bellare discloses the following:
storing the plurality of scene attributes as metadata associated with the respective scene [paras.0051-0052: Discloses providing access to content assets and content metadata associated with the content assets. Bellare teaches this limitation because it associates metadata with content assets for later retrieval and matching.];
identifying at least one scene of the plurality of scenes having associated metadata that indicates that the queried object is depicted in the at least one scene [paras.0056, 0062, 0078: Discloses comparing user profile attributes with content metadata to determine content assets to return in response to a request for personalized content. Bellare teaches this limitation because content associated with matching metadata is identified for retrieval.];
comparing the plurality of scene attributes of the at least one scene to user interest metadata accessed from the user profile [paras.0056, 0110: Discloses comparing user profile attributes with content metadata, in accordance with recommendation rules, to determine a ranked collection of content assets. Bellare teaches this limitation because it compares metadata associated with content to metadata associated with a user profile.];
based on the comparing indicating that one or more scene attributes of the at least one scene corresponds to at least a portion of the user interest metadata, selecting the at least one scene to be used as supplemental content [paras.0056, 0078-0079, 0110: Discloses determining one or more content assets to return based on comparing user profile attributes with content metadata and delivering the selected personalized content. Bellare teaches this limitation because content is selected for delivery based on the comparison results.];
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify JEONG with these features, as taught by Bellare, in order to predictably provide personalized supplemental content by matching content metadata with user profile attributes [Bellare: para.0009].
Regarding Claim 2, the combined teachings of JEONG and Bellare discloses the method of claim 1, and Bellare further teaches wherein the plurality of scene attributes comprises data describing at least one of: scene type, scene popularity, soundtrack type, or popularity of an actor or character corresponding to an object depicted in the scene [paras.0040, 0044, 0047, 0051-0056: Discloses content metadata including content classification, taxonomy, tagging, and semantic meaning associated with content assets. Bellare teaches this limitation because content classification and taxonomy metadata describe a type of content, which corresponds under the broadest reasonable interpretation to scene type metadata.]. This claim is rejected on the same grounds as claim 1.
Regarding Claim 3, the combined teachings of JEONG and Bellare discloses the method of claim 2, and JEONG further teaches wherein the user interest metadata includes one or more metadata items for the at least one scene indicating at least one of:
whether the scene was rewatched by a user of the user profile, whether the scene was skipped by the user, whether a volume of the media asset was modified by the user during the scene, a facial expression of the user detected during the scene, or a verbal expression of the user detected during the scene [paras.0148-0152, 0255-0257: Discloses detecting and identifying a human face from images using a data recognition model and using the identified face to obtain a candidate image. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, detecting a user’s face during media playback teaches metadata indicating a facial expression of the user detected during the scene.].
Regarding Claim 4, the combined teachings of JEONG and Bellare discloses the method of claim 3, and Bellare further teaches wherein comparing the plurality of scene attributes of the at least one scene to the user interest metadata accessed from the user profile associated with the query comprises:
assigning at least one importance weight to each user interest metadata item [para.0078: Discloses performing an “attribute-metadata matching” between user profile attributes (corresponding to the claimed user interest metadata items) and content metadata. The matching assigns relative significance to the user profile attributes in determining a personalized recommendation, corresponding under the broadest reasonable interpretation to assign an importance weight to each user interest metadata item.];
based on the assigning, identifying one or more scenes with a highest sum of weighted metadata item values [paras.0078, 0082: Discloses using the results of the attribute-metadata matching to determine a personalized recommendation and returning matches with a relevancy ranking. The identified highest-ranked content corresponds under the broadest reasonable interpretation to identifying one or more scenes having the highest sum of weighted metadata item values.];
assigning a relevancy weight to each of the one or more identified scenes, wherein the relevancy weight of each scene is calculated based on determining one or more connections between the plurality of scene attributes and the one or more user interest metadata items for the particular scene [para.0082: Discloses determining matches between user profile attributes (corresponding to the claimed user interest metadata items) and content metadata (corresponding to the claimed scene attributes) and returning the matches with a relevancy ranking. The relevancy ranking corresponds under the broadest reasonable interpretation to assigning a relevancy weight based on the determined connections between the scene attributes and the user interest metadata items.]; and
ranking the one or more identified scenes based on the assigned relevancy weights [para.0082: Discloses returning the identified matches with a “relevancy ranking,” which corresponds to ranking the identified scenes based on their assigned relevancy weights.]. This claim is rejected on the same grounds as claim 3.
Regarding Claim 5, the combined teachings of JEONG and Bellare discloses the method of claim 4, and Bellare further teaches wherein selecting the at least one scene to be used as the supplemental content comprises:
selecting a highest ranked scene of the one or more identified scenes [para.0082: Discloses returning matches with a relevancy ranking, wherein the highest ranked match is selected as the personalized recommendation, The highest ranked match corresponds under the broadest reasonable interpretation to selecting the highest ranked scene of the one or more identified scenes.]. This claim is rejected on the same grounds as claim 4.
Regarding Claim 10, the combined teachings of JEONG and Bellare discloses the method of claim 1, and JEONG further teaches wherein the supplemental content and the media asset are displayed simultaneously on different devices associated with the user profile [FIG.11, paras.0250, 0261, 0266: Discloses displaying the media asset on electronic apparatus (item 10) while supplemental content is displayed on another electronic apparatus (item 20). Specifically, FIG.11 and paragraph 0250 describe recommending information related to media content reproduced in electronic apparatus (item 10) through a user interface displayed on another electronic apparatus, paragraph 0261 teaches displaying the candidate image on electronic apparatus (item 20), and paragraph 0266 teaches displaying the received relevant information on electronic apparatus (item 20). Accordingly, JEONG teaches, under broadest reasonable interpretation, displaying the supplemental content and the media asset simultaneously on different devices associated with the user profile.].
Regarding Claim 11, Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JEONG in view of Bellare for the same reasons set forth with respect to Claim 1. Claim 11 merely recites corresponding limitations of Claim 1 in system form, with the claimed control circuitry [JEONG, para.0037] and input/output circuitry [JEONG, paras.0037-0038] performing the same functions as the method steps recited in Claim 1. Accordingly, the combined teachings of JEONG and Bellare render Claim 11 obvious for the reasons discussed above, as Claim 11 merely recites the corresponding limitations of Claim 1 in system form.
Regarding Claim 12, Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JEONG in view of Bellare for the same reasons set forth with respect to Claim 2. Claim 12 merely recites corresponding limitations of Claim 2 in system form, performing the same functions as the method steps recited in Claim 2. Accordingly, the combined teachings of JEONG and Bellare render Claim 12 obvious for the reasons discussed above, as Claim 12 merely recites the corresponding limitations of Claim 2 in system form.
Regarding Claim 13, Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JEONG in view of Bellare for the same reasons set forth with respect to Claim 3. Claim 13 merely recites corresponding limitations of Claim 3 in system form, performing the same functions as the method steps recited in Claim 3. Accordingly, the combined teachings of JEONG and Bellare render Claim 13 obvious for the reasons discussed above, as Claim 13 merely recites the corresponding limitations of Claim 3 in system form.
Regarding Claim 14, Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JEONG in view of Bellare for the same reasons set forth with respect to Claim 4. Claim 14 merely recites corresponding limitations of Claim 4 in system form, performing the same functions as the method steps recited in Claim 4. Accordingly, the combined teachings of JEONG and Bellare render Claim 14 obvious for the reasons discussed above, as Claim 14 merely recites the corresponding limitations of Claim 4 in system form.
Regarding Claim 15, Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JEONG in view of Bellare for the same reasons set forth with respect to Claim 5. Claim 15 merely recites corresponding limitations of Claim 5 in system form, performing the same functions as the method steps recited in Claim 5. Accordingly, the combined teachings of JEONG and Bellare render Claim 15 obvious for the reasons discussed above, as Claim 15 merely recites the corresponding limitations of Claim 5 in system form.
Regarding Claim 20, Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JEONG in view of Bellare for the same reasons set forth with respect to Claim 10. Claim 20 merely recites corresponding limitations of Claim 10 in system form, performing the same functions as the method steps recited in Claim 10. Accordingly, the combined teachings of JEONG and Bellare render Claim 20 obvious for the reasons discussed above, as Claim 20 merely recites the corresponding limitations of Claim 10 in system form.
Claims 6, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JEONG et al., Pub No US 2021/0321166 (hereafter JEONG) in view of Bellare et al., Pub No US 2020/0257748 (hereafter Bellare) and further in view of HUGHES et al., Pub No US 2015/0058264 (hereafter HUGHES).
Regarding Claim 6, the combined teachings of JEONG and Bellare discloses the method of claim 4, the combined teachings do not explicitly disclose wherein the relevancy weight of each of the one or more identified scenes is determined by running a multivariate regression model, and wherein running the multivariate regression model comprises: iteratively updating each of the relevancy weights using a gradient descent technique. However, in analogous art, HUGHES discloses iteratively autotuning prediction parameters of a media-content recommender using a machine-learning optimization technique. Specifically, HUGHES teaches iteratively updating prediction parameters based on prediction error [paras.0006, 0029, 0052], wherein the machine-learning optimization technique may comprise a stochastic gradient descent technique [para.0007, claims 3-4], and further teaches that gradient descent optimization iteratively modifies prediction parameters to minimize prediction error [paras.0033-0036]. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the prediction parameters correspond to the claimed relevancy weights, and the iterative gradient-descent optimization of those prediction parameters corresponds to running the claimed multivariate regression model comprising iteratively updating each of the relevancy weights using a gradient descent technique. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify JEONG and Bellare such that the relevancy weight of each identified scenes is determined by iteratively updating the weights using a gradient descent technique, as taught by HUGHES, in order to optimize the prediction parameters based on prediction error, thereby yielding the predictable result of improving the accuracy of determining relevancy weights used to rank and select supplemental content [HUGHES, para.0006].
Regarding Claim 16, Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JEONG in view of Bellare and further in view of HUGHES for the same reasons set forth with respect to Claim 6. Claim 16 merely recites corresponding limitations of Claim 6 in system form, performing the same functions as the method steps recited in Claim 6. Accordingly, the combined teachings of JEONG, Bellare, and HUGHES render Claim 16 obvious for the reasons discussed above, as Claim 16 merely recites the corresponding limitations of Claim 6 in system form.
Claims 8-9 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JEONG et al., Pub No US 2021/0321166 (hereafter JEONG) in view of Bellare et al., Pub No US 2020/0257748 (hereafter Bellare) and further in view of Jeon et al., Pub No US 2014/0109139 (hereafter Jeon).
Regarding Claim 8, the combined teachings of JEONG and Bellare discloses the method of claim 1, the combined teachings do not explicitly disclose wherein the media asset is an episode of a media series, and wherein the at least the portion of the plurality of scenes is from other episodes of the media series. However, in analogous art, Jeon discloses generating recommendations for episodes of a media series, wherein a selected episode is associated with other episodes of the same series. Specifically, Jeon teaches that recommendations may be generated based on a series identifier [para.0121], searches for episodes of the identified program and returns information about those episodes [para.0122], presents program groupings that include one or more collection of episodes [para.0051], and that each program grouping includes one or more episodes of the particular program [para.0069]. Jeon further claims that the host series comprises a plurality of related media program episodes (claim 3). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify JEONG and Bellare such that the media asset is an episode of a media series and at least a portion of the plurality of scenes is from other episodes of the media series, as taught by Jeon, in order to assist users in finding media programming in which they may have an interest and to provide additional information about, or access to, that programming, thereby yielding the predictable result of providing more relevant supplemental content from related episodes of the same media series [Jeon, para.0004].
Regarding Claim 9, the combined teachings of JEONG and Bellare discloses the method of claim 1, the combined teachings do not explicitly disclose wherein the media asset is an episode of a first media series, and wherein the plurality of scenes is from one or more episodes of a second media series related to the first media series. However, in analogous art, Jeon discloses generating recommendations for media series in which a selected program is associated with related programs and series. Specifically, Jeon teaches that recommendations may identify other series having sufficiently related factors, such as common genres, plot descriptions, actors, etc. [para.0121], and that such other series may be recommended based on their degree of commonality with the initial series [para.0121]. Jeon further teaches identifying programs having common topics [para.0041], identifying other programs sharing common topics [para.0041], determining correlations between media programs using genre-based and content-based relationships [paras.0030-0037], and correlating programs related to a search result based on genre or other media programming [para.0101]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify JEONG and Bellare such that the media asset is an episode of a first media series and the plurality of scenes is from one or more episodes of a second media series related to the first media series, as taught by Jeon, in order to assist users in finding media programming in which they may have an interest and to provide additional information about, or access to, that programming, thereby yielding the predictable result of providing more relevant supplemental content from related media series [Jeon, para.0004].
Regarding Claim 18, Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JEONG in view of Bellare and further in view of Jeon for the same reasons set forth with respect to Claim 8. Claim 18 merely recites corresponding limitations of Claim 8 in system form, performing the same functions as the method steps recited in Claim 8. Accordingly, the combined teachings of JEONG, Bellare, and Jeon render Claim 18 obvious for the reasons discussed above, as Claim 18 merely recites the corresponding limitations of Claim 8 in system form.
Regarding Claim 19, Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JEONG in view of Bellare and further in view of Jeon for the same reasons set forth with respect to Claim 9. Claim 19 merely recites corresponding limitations of Claim 9 in system form, performing the same functions as the method steps recited in Claim 9. Accordingly, the combined teachings of JEONG, Bellare, and Jeon render Claim 19 obvious for the reasons discussed above, as Claim 19 merely recites the corresponding limitations of Claim 9 in system form.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Pearlman et al., (US 2023/0125723) – Discloses a user equipment device (e.g., user television equipment 402, user computer equipment 404, wireless user communications device 406) may be referred to as a "second screen device." For example, a second screen device may supplement content presented on a first user equipment device. The content presented on the second screen device may be any suitable content that supplements the content presented on the first device [para.0064]. Also disclose information that is related to the media asset or that is relevant to the user in view of user preferences [paras.0086, 0099].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADIL OCAK whose telephone number is (571) 272-2774. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nasser Goodarzi can be reached on 571-272-4195. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system; contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ADIL OCAK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2426
Regarding Claim 11, Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JEONG in view of Bellare for the same reasons set forth with respect to Claim 1. Claim 11 merely recites corresponding limitations of Claim 1 in system form, with the claimed control circuitry [JEONG, para.0037] and input/output circuitry [JEONG, paras.0037-0038] performing the same functions as the method steps recited in Claim 1. Accordingly, the combined teachings of JEONG and Bellare render Claim 11 obvious for the reasons discussed above, as Claim 11 merely recites the corresponding limitations of Claim 1 in system form.
Prosecution Insights